TAT scoring question

[Mark Zivley]

If you have a Turn Area Task and you fly into turn 1, then fly into turn
2 then pass through the finish circle could/should it be possible to
leave the finish circle and return to turn 2 and fly deeper into the
circle than you did the first time and then return to the finish circle?

On an option task, you could return to the finish, leave and attempt to
go to an additional turnpoint, but if you landed out you could (if I
understand this correctly) fill out your landing card as you had
finished the first time and not be penalized for the landout. However,
if you successfully made an additional turnpoint and returned to the
finish point you could then add that distance to your task (via landing
card) if you so chose.

If you can do that for an option task, could one apply similar logic to
the TAT as I describe above. Take a "finish" to make sure you didn't
land out, and if conditions improved then go back to the last turn point
and fly to a farther point within the circle. There is no credit for
adding an additional turnpoint, just pushing the second turnpoint mark
farther out for a longer distance calculation for the original task.

Winscore does not allow this in it's current thinking and it's kind of a
moot point because a change in our score wouldn't change our standing
for either the day or the overall, but it certainly begs for a
clarification. It might be nice to clarify this point in the rules
because someone might enter the finish cylinder one day without any
intent to "finish", but receive a "finish" from Winscore they weren't
expecting.

Mark

[Kilo Charlie]

I'm sure all you folks know this but this thread pertains to the US rules.

Winscore is a great scoring program but it is only a tool and cannot be
expected to catch each and every exception.

Re one of your questions....first of all I can't think of how it would
benefit anyone to finish then go back out to the last area and finish again
i.e. your speed would be quite slow. Maybe if a storm developed and blew
over and you managed to stay in the air and with improving conditions
decided to go back out? Wow that's a stretch but who knows. There is
nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing that BTW.

Re your other question about not being penalized for attempting another TP
after finishing....I disagree. The Flight Documentation Interval is usually
one hour and so I can't see how you could head back out then be able to
landout, get it in the box or even get an aero retrieve and comply with that
rule. It does not apply to landouts but you can't have it both ways i.e. if
you "finished" before you landed out then you'll have to comply with the
rule, if not then you in fact did landout and will be scored that way.
Interestingly enough I can't find a rule to prevent someone from at least
attempting to do what you suggested though.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Mark Zivley]

For the case of going back out on course, in this case we had a 3 hour
minimum task time, but with the thick high cirrus developing, everyone
hit the two turnpoints (if they could) then "finished". As luck would
have it by the time we got back to the finish point (2 hours into the
task) the cirrus started to break, we worked a couple of very weak
thermals to "survive" and as it continued to improve we headed back out.
Since it appeared that any finishers would finish below the minimum
time we had an hour to use w/o any penalty to try to push our distance
up a bit which would then improve our overall speed. Crazy, but that's
what happened.

For the case of adding a turnpoint, if you're a motorglider (which we
were) you COULD get back to the finish airport after cranking out the
motor, land, and get your landing info in w/o too much trouble as long
as you were less than say 40 miles away from the finish airport.



Kilo Charlie wrote:
> I'm sure all you folks know this but this thread pertains to the US rules.
>
> Winscore is a great scoring program but it is only a tool and cannot be
> expected to catch each and every exception.
>
> Re one of your questions....first of all I can't think of how it would
> benefit anyone to finish then go back out to the last area and finish again
> i.e. your speed would be quite slow. Maybe if a storm developed and blew
> over and you managed to stay in the air and with improving conditions
> decided to go back out? Wow that's a stretch but who knows. There is
> nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing that BTW.
>
> Re your other question about not being penalized for attempting another TP
> after finishing....I disagree. The Flight Documentation Interval is usually
> one hour and so I can't see how you could head back out then be able to
> landout, get it in the box or even get an aero retrieve and comply with that
> rule. It does not apply to landouts but you can't have it both ways i.e. if
> you "finished" before you landed out then you'll have to comply with the
> rule, if not then you in fact did landout and will be scored that way.
> Interestingly enough I can't find a rule to prevent someone from at least
> attempting to do what you suggested though.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix
>
>

[John Sinclair]

Mark,
You are always free to request the scorer review your
flight to insure you were given the optimum score,
this happens frequently when the scoring system doesn't
always use your latest or most advantages start. Your
question about flying all the way from the second turn
area and then back there, just to add a few miles is
little more than mental masturbation, because there
is no way you will be able to improve your speed by
doing that.
:>) JJ

[Kilo Charlie]

"Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
m...

> For the case of adding a turnpoint, if you're a motorglider (which we
> were) you COULD get back to the finish airport after cranking out the
> motor, land, and get your landing info in w/o too much trouble as long
> as you were less than say 40 miles away from the finish airport.

If that is the case then I would suggest that it should be addressed by an
addition to the rules to preclude any motorglider from doing what you
stated. There have been extended threads on this group re advantages vs.
disadvantages of motorgliders in a contest. What you are suggesting is
basically cheating in my mind since it is a clear and unfair advantage over
the pilots without the capability to start an engine and get back in time.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Eric Greenwell]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> "Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>
>>For the case of adding a turnpoint, if you're a motorglider (which we
>>were) you COULD get back to the finish airport after cranking out the
>>motor, land, and get your landing info in w/o too much trouble as long
>>as you were less than say 40 miles away from the finish airport.
>
>
> If that is the case then I would suggest that it should be addressed by an
> addition to the rules to preclude any motorglider from doing what you
> stated. There have been extended threads on this group re advantages vs.
> disadvantages of motorgliders in a contest. What you are suggesting is
> basically cheating in my mind since it is a clear and unfair advantage over
> the pilots without the capability to start an engine and get back in time.

I'm confused here: how is possible to add a turnpoint AFTER you've
finished? Doesn't "finished" mean the task is over? And if you haven't
finished, then the FDI time hasn't started yet, so isn't a factor.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[John Sinclair]

Let me see
if I got this straight, Mark. You are advocating an
early finish followed by an attempt to better your
speed and if that fails, you plan to beat it back home
so as to make the flight documentation time, in order
to claim your short task speed? Do I have that right,
Mark?

If I were the CD, I would land you at your engine start
point (for distance points only) and probably give
you an un-sportsman-like penalty for trying to manipulate
the rules.

I will add your example to a growing list of motor
glider abuses that I hope will lead to some constraints
being placed on motor gliders when they are allowed
to compete with pure sailplanes.
JJ Sinclair


At 20:30
29 August 2004, Mark Zivley wrote:
>
>For the case of adding a turnpoint, if you're a motorglider
>(which we
>were) you COULD get back to the finish airport after
>cranking out the
>motor, land, and get your landing info in w/o too much
>trouble as long
>as you were less than say 40 miles away from the finish
>airport.
>
>
>

[Mark Zivley]

John,

Hold on a second here and please don't get too carried away.

1. Everyone at the contest was a motorglider so there was no unfair
advantage to having a motor in this particular case.

2. From the word go, I'm not looking for a score change, just some
clarification on the rules. As I mentioned, even if there was a score
change it would have had no impact on the day or the total.

3. It was quite possible for us to have avoided the 2 mile radius
finish circle at the time we were "surviving" as it looked like the day
was going to re-cycle. If we had not touched the finish circle then
there should have been no question that we could have gone back to turn
area 2 with the additional altitude that we had earned and generated a
point that was deeper into turn 2 that would have given us more credit
for distance and therefore speed.

4. Let's not get too carried away w/ "unsportsmanlike" conduct. I
simply have pointed out an example that did really occur. It's not
unsportsmanlike to go to the finish point and use it as a turn point and
then head back out in the hopes that you can tack on one more turnpoint.
If you make it to an additional turn point and come back to the
finish point you have the option (motorglider or not) to decide at the
time that you fill in your landing card as to whether you claim the
additional turn point or not. True?

Remember, I'm not ranting and raving here, just pointing out what
happened so it can be clarified (hopefully) as we go forward.

Mark

[John Sinclair]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mark, but you said you could
attempt another turn point on a MAT and if that didn't
work out, just crank up the old Put-Put and motor home
in time to claim your earlier flight?

I see an un-motored sailpland finishes second, look
for a request to not allow un-powered sailplanes in
a motorglider contest. With that for a basis, how about
a rule that doesn't allow motor sailplanes in a ------------------
--------- You can see where I'm going with this. If
I had my way, you would hand the CD your sparkplugs
when you entered the contest. Then the playing field
really would be equal.
JJ





JJ

[Mark Zivley]

John,

Please remember that the original issue had NOTHING to do w/ motors. If
you have a TAT and you nick the finish circle, could/should it be
allowed to go back and push a turn point back out for extra distance?
If yes, then perhaps winscore could be revised to calculate for that.
If no then it would be nice to inform everyone, via the rules, that the
finish circle needs to be avoided until you're done. I simply pointed
out the precedent that one could use the finish point in a MAT as a turn
point and then decide later how the flight should be scored as an example.

If you want to start a new thread about motorgliders, please go right
ahead...

Mark

[John Cochrane]

The obscure provision of the rules that stops you from keeping one
"finish" in the bag and trying for more is this one:

11.2.2.4.4 If all claimed turnpoints are valid, and the pilot
obtained a scored start time, a finish time prior to finish closing
and landed at the contest site, then the pilot has completed the task.

Note "And landed at the contest site." Yes, you can go back and go
deeper into the last turn, and you can also try more turnpoints on an
MAT, but if you land out you don't get to call your pass by the
airport a "finish".

Similarly, you can fly the whole course again if you like. However, if
you land out the second time around, the first one can only count for
distance points, not for speed points. Thus, it's usually a good idea
to land, turn in the trace, and take off again if you want to do the
task a second time.

However, as far as I can tell, you CAN call your first passage the
"finish" for scoring purposes if you're willing to take the land-out
risk. For example, if you try another turnpoint in a MAT but then turn
around and land home, or even if you make it but it gives you a slower
time overall, nothing stops you from calling the first passage a
"finish."

The flight documentation interval is the time between LANDING and
turning in the score, not the time between FINISHING and turning in
the score

10.10.1.1 Flight Documentation Interval (FDI)
This is the maximum time that may elapse between a landing at the
contest site and the submission of a Landing Card and flight
documentation to the Scorer. When not otherwise designated by the CD,
a value of 1 hour shall be used.

Does anyone disagree with this interpretation? I can't find a "finish
time interval" (nor can edit find in the SSA rules) between the time
of finish and landing.

John Cochrane BB



Mark Zivley > wrote in message >...
> If you have a Turn Area Task and you fly into turn 1, then fly into turn
> 2 then pass through the finish circle could/should it be possible to
> leave the finish circle and return to turn 2 and fly deeper into the
> circle than you did the first time and then return to the finish circle?
>
> On an option task, you could return to the finish, leave and attempt to
> go to an additional turnpoint, but if you landed out you could (if I
> understand this correctly) fill out your landing card as you had
> finished the first time and not be penalized for the landout. However,
> if you successfully made an additional turnpoint and returned to the
> finish point you could then add that distance to your task (via landing
> card) if you so chose.
>
> If you can do that for an option task, could one apply similar logic to
> the TAT as I describe above. Take a "finish" to make sure you didn't
> land out, and if conditions improved then go back to the last turn point
> and fly to a farther point within the circle. There is no credit for
> adding an additional turnpoint, just pushing the second turnpoint mark
> farther out for a longer distance calculation for the original task.
>
> Winscore does not allow this in it's current thinking and it's kind of a
> moot point because a change in our score wouldn't change our standing
> for either the day or the overall, but it certainly begs for a
> clarification. It might be nice to clarify this point in the rules
> because someone might enter the finish cylinder one day without any
> intent to "finish", but receive a "finish" from Winscore they weren't
> expecting.
>
> Mark

[John Sinclair]

Mark,
You are free to claim the contest site as a turn point
and then proceed to another turn point, but if you
land out or start your engine, you will get distance
points only. It's your devious attempt to have your
cake and eat it too, that has me upset.
JJ

[Eric Greenwell]

John Cochrane wrote:
> The obscure provision of the rules that stops you from keeping one
> "finish" in the bag and trying for more is this one:
>
> 11.2.2.4.4 If all claimed turnpoints are valid, and the pilot
> obtained a scored start time, a finish time prior to finish closing
> and landed at the contest site, then the pilot has completed the task.
>
> Note "And landed at the contest site." Yes, you can go back and go
> deeper into the last turn, and you can also try more turnpoints on an
> MAT, but if you land out you don't get to call your pass by the
> airport a "finish".

So, if a motorglider pilot tried this, then ended up using the motor
(effectively a landout) to return to the contest site, he would have
hurt his score just as much as the pilot of an unpowered glider that
tries the same thing and actually lands out.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Curtl33]

>The flight documentation interval is the time between LANDING and
>turning in the score, not the time between FINISHING and turning in
>the score
>
> 10.10.1.1 Flight Documentation Interval (FDI)
>This is the maximum time that may elapse between a landing at the
>contest site and the submission of a Landing Card and flight
>documentation to the Scorer. When not otherwise designated by the CD,
>a value of 1 hour shall be used.
>
>Does anyone disagree with this interpretation? I can't find a "finish
>time interval" (nor can edit find in the SSA rules) between the time
>of finish and landing.
>
>John Cochrane BB

John,

I recall the "LTI- Landing Time Interval"(?) that I think was dropped when the
dataloggers came in. I can't find any mention of it in the rules now)

Specifying a max time between the finish and subsequent landing kept the
"creative" competitors from finishing and then flying out to add another nearby
turnpoint to their filmstrip.

Curt Lewis - 95
Genesis 2

[Jonathan Gere]

My opinion:

Starts and finishes are announced on the radio. No TP's before even
an unclaimed re-start are usable. No TP's after even an unclaimed
earlier finish are usable. Not only that but the required on-site
landing to get speed points must occur at the end of the very flight
containing all claimed control points.

Otherwise chaos:

The rules don't permit "stealth" finishes, although the scorekeeper
might not notice one:

10.9.3.4.1 When four miles from the cylinder perimeter, the pilot
shall transmit "[Contest ID] four miles."
10.9.3.4.2 Upon entering the finish cylinder, the pilot shall transmit
"[Contest ID] finished." If the finish is
substantially above the bottom of the finish cylinder, the altitude
may be included; altitude should be
announced as either MSL or AGL.
10.9.4.3 Communications
When four miles from the finish gate, the pilot shall transmit
"[Contest ID] four miles." The Gate Director will
respond, "[Contest ID]."

So the question is can a pilot call multiple starts/finishes and
choose the best scoring one?

There is a rule explicitly permitting using the best-scoring start
(10.8.2.1). I can't find a rule prohibiting multiple finishes. But
still, I think the intention is that any TPs in hand are zapped by
re-starting and that the first finish must be used. I just can't find
a rule that says so.

Turnpoint shenanigans aside, if one entered the finish cylinder too
low, called a finish, climbed up and re-finished high enough, could
one use the better scoring finish?

To preclude undertime penalties and keep more options open, how about
this? On a long soaring day can one start, fly the designated sequence
of TP's, start again at the "optimal" time, fly the designated
sequence again, and finish? And claim the best of twice around, the
first attempt, or the second attempt afterwards?

10.5.1.2 Flight documentation must show that control points were
achieved in the proper sequence;
out-of-sequence points shall be ignored.

Are TP's between two starts or two finishes "out of sequence", even if
they are between the claimed valid start and the claimed good finish?
I think this is the intention of the rules. That any start, claimed
or not, wipes prior TPs, and any finish, claimed or not, wipes
subsequent TPs.

> 11.2.2.4.4 If all claimed turnpoints are valid, and the pilot
> obtained a scored start time, a finish time prior to finish closing
> and landed at the contest site, then the pilot has completed the task.

The landing is not a control point, so does it have to follow the
finish to satisfy 10.5.1.2 and 11.2.2.4.4? Can jailhouse lawyers
relight to get in the required on site landing before the task opens?
It's no good doing a flight after your retrieve to get the finish or
on-site landing in, because 10.8.2.1 does in the starts from your
previous flights.

10.8.2.1 A valid start is a start obtained after the task has opened
and after the pilot's last launch. A pilot must
have a valid start to be given a scored start time. In general, the
best-scoring valid start is used.

Rule 10.8.2.1 also seems to preclude landing, turning in
documentation, and trying again. Each launch would invalidate the the
starts of the previous flight. But trying again on a second flight is
explicitly permitted elsewhere in the rules.

Glad I'm not a lawyer or rule writer. Tough job to avoid loopholes
and contradictions.

Jonathan Gere

(John Cochrane) wrote in message >...
> The obscure provision of the rules that stops you from keeping one
> "finish" in the bag and trying for more is this one:
>
> 11.2.2.4.4 If all claimed turnpoints are valid, and the pilot
> obtained a scored start time, a finish time prior to finish closing
> and landed at the contest site, then the pilot has completed the task.
>
> Note "And landed at the contest site." Yes, you can go back and go
> deeper into the last turn, and you can also try more turnpoints on an
> MAT, but if you land out you don't get to call your pass by the
> airport a "finish".
>
> Similarly, you can fly the whole course again if you like. However, if
> you land out the second time around, the first one can only count for
> distance points, not for speed points. Thus, it's usually a good idea
> to land, turn in the trace, and take off again if you want to do the
> task a second time.
>
> However, as far as I can tell, you CAN call your first passage the
> "finish" for scoring purposes if you're willing to take the land-out
> risk. For example, if you try another turnpoint in a MAT but then turn
> around and land home, or even if you make it but it gives you a slower
> time overall, nothing stops you from calling the first passage a
> "finish."
>
> The flight documentation interval is the time between LANDING and
> turning in the score, not the time between FINISHING and turning in
> the score
>
> 10.10.1.1 Flight Documentation Interval (FDI)
> This is the maximum time that may elapse between a landing at the
> contest site and the submission of a Landing Card and flight
> documentation to the Scorer. When not otherwise designated by the CD,
> a value of 1 hour shall be used.
>
> Does anyone disagree with this interpretation? I can't find a "finish
> time interval" (nor can edit find in the SSA rules) between the time
> of finish and landing.
>
> John Cochrane BB
>
>
>
> Mark Zivley > wrote in message >...
> > If you have a Turn Area Task and you fly into turn 1, then fly into turn
> > 2 then pass through the finish circle could/should it be possible to
> > leave the finish circle and return to turn 2 and fly deeper into the
> > circle than you did the first time and then return to the finish circle?
> >
> > On an option task, you could return to the finish, leave and attempt to
> > go to an additional turnpoint, but if you landed out you could (if I
> > understand this correctly) fill out your landing card as you had
> > finished the first time and not be penalized for the landout. However,
> > if you successfully made an additional turnpoint and returned to the
> > finish point you could then add that distance to your task (via landing
> > card) if you so chose.
> >
> > If you can do that for an option task, could one apply similar logic to
> > the TAT as I describe above. Take a "finish" to make sure you didn't
> > land out, and if conditions improved then go back to the last turn point
> > and fly to a farther point within the circle. There is no credit for
> > adding an additional turnpoint, just pushing the second turnpoint mark
> > farther out for a longer distance calculation for the original task.
> >
> > Winscore does not allow this in it's current thinking and it's kind of a
> > moot point because a change in our score wouldn't change our standing
> > for either the day or the overall, but it certainly begs for a
> > clarification. It might be nice to clarify this point in the rules
> > because someone might enter the finish cylinder one day without any
> > intent to "finish", but receive a "finish" from Winscore they weren't
> > expecting.
> >
> > Mark

[Kilo Charlie]

Jonathan....as confusing as the rules are I think that they are not nearly
as confusing as you are making them out to be.

First of all you can say whatever you wish on the radio but it makes
absolutely NO difference now i.e. the "good finish" stuff is simply a
courtesy leftover from the old days. I don't see any rule that says once
you "say" you are going to finish that you are required to do so.

The original point was to ask if it is "legal" to finish then take a chance
that you could make another turn on an MAT task. There was another re TAT's
but I think we've covered that. There is no rule that I can see precluding
anyone from "finishing" high then going on to another turnpoint to see if
they could make it and if so claiming the prior "finish" was one of their
turnpoints with them in the end adding at least one more turn prior to the
"real" finish.

In practicality I think both of these situations would arise only rarely but
as weird as the weather can be am sure that eventually it would occur. I
think Mark has brought up some good points and it is always good to put the
rules to the test if not in flight then theoretically.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Andy Durbin]

(John Cochrane) wrote in message
>
> Does anyone disagree with this interpretation? I can't find a "finish
> time interval" (nor can edit find in the SSA rules) between the time
> of finish and landing.
>
> John Cochrane BB


Agree. The FTI, a max time between finishing and landing, went away a
while ago. The intention of that rule, like the STI, was to stop
contestants getting pictures of additional turnpoints after finishing
(or before starting). Like STI, FTI was dropped when cameras were no
longer allowed, not when loggers were allowed. There was an overlap
when both cameras and loggers were used. I think I was the last US
competitor to use cameras in a national.

Andy

[Jonathan Gere]

Leaving out the more absurd loopholes (all claimed control points and
the required on-site landing not contained in a single flight) and
contradictions (inability to re-launch on a second attempt, without
invalidating the start from the successful task completion during the
previous flight); I don't think this thread has correctly analysed
the issues of multiple finishes. Whatever conclusions have been
reached about inserting TPs(MAT) and extending TPs (TAT) between two
finishes would seem to me to apply equally and more so to keeping in
the pocket TPs reached between two starts. After all it is explicit
in the U.S. rules that the best scoring start be scored, which is more
than can be said regarding multiple finishes. Also, calling back
starts is only required if the CD chooses, but calling finishes (and
"Finished" <past tense> on cylinders) or being observed by the gate
(on lines) is always required.

You think this radio chatter is just a quaint anachronism. I think it
is the only test of an actual start/finish, as opposed to a flight
path just happening to pass through the start/finish zones. I don't
think WinScore or the scorer can be expected to determine the pilots'
intentions from the flight path.

I think adding or extending TPs between multiple starts or finishes is
not the intent or (gasp) spirit of the rules. I don't think you can
get away with it at a contest IF anyone notices. I think that such
TPs are considered "out of sequence", even if they could just as well
be looked at as "in sequence" by disregarding unwanted later starts or
earlier finishes.

Bottom line. I think you finished or you didn't, based on your radio
chatter. If you finished you have no further chance to go out and add
/extend TPs. If you didn't than you have no finish in the bag to fall
back on. I believe accepting the landout risk applies ONLY to making
a second attempt without landing and turning in documentation. Going
out after finishing without re-starting has no possible reward.

Jonathan

PS Didn't we have the exact same thread last year? Perhaps the rule
writer should comment on whether there are multiple choice starts and
finishes with TP's in between. I think any TPs before your last start
or after your first finish are intended to be null and void. This is
nearly impossible to enforce in the case of non-called in starts.

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message news:<tURYc.5278$Mf.3157@fed1read02>...
> Jonathan....as confusing as the rules are I think that they are not nearly
> as confusing as you are making them out to be.
>
> First of all you can say whatever you wish on the radio but it makes
> absolutely NO difference now i.e. the "good finish" stuff is simply a
> courtesy leftover from the old days. I don't see any rule that says once
> you "say" you are going to finish that you are required to do so.
>
> The original point was to ask if it is "legal" to finish then take a chance
> that you could make another turn on an MAT task. There was another re TAT's
> but I think we've covered that. There is no rule that I can see precluding
> anyone from "finishing" high then going on to another turnpoint to see if
> they could make it and if so claiming the prior "finish" was one of their
> turnpoints with them in the end adding at least one more turn prior to the
> "real" finish.
>
> In practicality I think both of these situations would arise only rarely but
> as weird as the weather can be am sure that eventually it would occur. I
> think Mark has brought up some good points and it is always good to put the
> rules to the test if not in flight then theoretically.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix

[Kirk Stant]

(Jonathan Gere) wrote in message >...
> To preclude undertime penalties and keep more options open, how about
> this? On a long soaring day can one start, fly the designated sequence
> of TP's, start again at the "optimal" time, fly the designated
> sequence again, and finish? And claim the best of twice around, the
> first attempt, or the second attempt afterwards?

If you used separate loggers, who would know?

A friend of mine and I did something similar a few years ago, during a
local contest that had a short task called on a good day: She flew
the task in my plane (hers was down for maintenance, I think),
starting soon after the gate opened. When she finished, I figured the
day was good enough to give me time to give it a go, so I jumped in my
glider as soon as she landed, took off, and flew the task myself.

She beat me by 1 mph, I think.

Kirk

[Tom Serkowski]

(Jonathan Gere) wrote in message >...
> My opinion:
....snip...
> Are TP's between two starts or two finishes "out of sequence", even if
> they are between the claimed valid start and the claimed good finish?
> I think this is the intention of the rules. That any start, claimed
> or not, wipes prior TPs, and any finish, claimed or not, wipes
> subsequent TPs.

Suppose I'm flying a POST and do the following:
Start, A, B, Home, C, D, Finish

If the 'Home' TP happens to coincide with the Finish cylinder, then
I'm unable to claim part of my valid task by your definition. If the
finish cylinder is on the B -> Home or Home -> C leg, must I go around
it?

What if I come home and plan to go to C, but circumstances are such
that I decide to finish instead. Do have to reenter the finish
cylinder to get a valid finish or did that entry I made 10 minutes (or
2 hours, since I spent that time at 500' a mile the other side of the
airport) ago count for a finish?

Finish announcements are, IMHO, purely for safety and operations.
Scoring is done by validating your landing card claim with the IGC
log.

IF a pilot chooses to go around twice without landing after the first
(announced or stealthy) finish, then he is at risk of getting distance
points if he lands out or starts the engine on the second attempt.
Making a landing and officially observed takeoff, allows him to use
the first flight if the second attempt ends with a landout.

Tom Serkowski

[Erik mann]

(John Cochrane) wrote in message >...
>
> However, as far as I can tell, you CAN call your first passage the
> "finish" for scoring purposes if you're willing to take the land-out
> risk. For example, if you try another turnpoint in a MAT but then turn
> around and land home, or even if you make it but it gives you a slower
> time overall, nothing stops you from calling the first passage a
> "finish."
>

I agree with John' interpretation, and I think the way you accomplish
this is based on the contents of the landing card. Using the MAT
example for a second, if we have a task with: Start, Turn 1, Turn 2
assigned and assuming the pilot completes Turns 1 and 2, then the
options for the next CLAIMED point are:

- Finish
- Turn 3

If the landing card says the pilot claims Finish (irrespective of
whether the trace shows he actually made Turn 3), then the scorer is
obligated to score the flight that way. As long as he was within the
limits of the Finish Cylinder, I see no reason why that isn't
legitimate. If the landing card says the pilot claims Turn 3, then
that's how it is scored. It's not unlike the old PST where you might
take a picture of a turnpoint as you went by it "just in case". You
might opt not to include it if you were going to exceed your 11
turnpoints, for example.

HOWEVER, rule 11.2.2.1 says that the landing card shall "accurately
reflect the flight that the pilot completed". As I recall, the intent
of that rule was to prevent someone from intentionally under-reporting
their flight in order to cancel out a day. That's certainly how I
would interpret this rule if I were on the Contest Competition
Committee (3.1.4).

As far as radio usage is concerned, the Appendix to the rules makes it
clear that the radio finish calls are for safety or nostalgia only
"Pilots and gate personnel should understand that the radio call... is
now mostly for show"

No?

P3

[Jonathan Gere]

(Tom Serkowski) wrote in message
> Suppose I'm flying a POST and do the following:
> Start, A, B, Home, C, D, Finish
>
> If the 'Home' TP happens to coincide with the Finish cylinder, then
> I'm unable to claim part of my valid task by your definition. If the
> finish cylinder is on the B -> Home or Home -> C leg, must I go around
> it?
>
It is easy to fly through the start/finish zones without starting or
finishing:
1) Don't announce a S or F on the radio
2) Don't claim a S or F at that point on your landing card

> What if I come home and plan to go to C, but circumstances are such
> that I decide to finish instead. Do have to reenter the finish
> cylinder to get a valid finish or did that entry I made 10 minutes (or
> 2 hours, since I spent that time at 500' a mile the other side of the
> airport) ago count for a finish?

It did not count for a finish, because you didn't announce it on the
radio. If you did call a finish, you are done after one lap and can't
go on later. I'm not speaking of what WinScore will say, only of what
the rules require. It is unambiguous that S's and F's "shall" be
announced on the radio. Maybe it can be a finish, but you take a
penalty for not announcing.

>
> Finish announcements are, IMHO, purely for safety and operations.
> Scoring is done by validating your landing card claim with the IGC
> log.

I think they also prevent pilots from having multiple starts and
finishes in play simultaneously.

>
> IF a pilot chooses to go around twice without landing after the first
> (announced or stealthy) finish, then he is at risk of getting distance
> points if he lands out or starts the engine on the second attempt.
> Making a landing and officially observed takeoff, allows him to use
> the first flight if the second attempt ends with a landout.

agreed, but do you think he has the option of claiming either one or
the combination of the two attempts if he goes around twice in one
flight?

>
> Tom Serkowski

Suppose S(tart)=F(inish)=TP C. No designated turn MAT. You fly
S-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-F (i.e. 11 TPs - 4 times around a
triangle) then after landing claim the best scoring of any one of 10
combinations of consecutive laps:
1,1+2,1+2+3,1+2+3+4,2,2+3,2+3+4,3,3+4,or 4.

Will this work? Can you openly announce all 4 S's and all 4 F's on
the radio to avoid the penalties for not doing so, and choose which to
discard by leaving them off your landing card?

If not, why not, under your interpretation of the rules.

If so, why do so many pilots go undertime on no turn MAT's, when they
could easily bank insurance laps during the start gate roulette?

Jonathan Gere

[Andy Durbin]

(Erik mann) wrote in message >...
> (John Cochrane) wrote in message >...
> >
> > However, as far as I can tell, you CAN call your first passage the
> > "finish" for scoring purposes if you're willing to take the land-out
> > risk. For example, if you try another turnpoint in a MAT but then turn
> > around and land home, or even if you make it but it gives you a slower
> > time overall, nothing stops you from calling the first passage a
> > "finish."
> >
>
> I agree with John' interpretation, and I think the way you accomplish
> this is based on the contents of the landing card. Using the MAT
> example for a second, if we have a task with: Start, Turn 1, Turn 2
> assigned and assuming the pilot completes Turns 1 and 2, then the
> options for the next CLAIMED point are:
>
> - Finish
> - Turn 3
>
> If the landing card says the pilot claims Finish (irrespective of
> whether the trace shows he actually made Turn 3), then the scorer is
> obligated to score the flight that way. As long as he was within the
> limits of the Finish Cylinder, I see no reason why that isn't
> legitimate. If the landing card says the pilot claims Turn 3, then
> that's how it is scored. It's not unlike the old PST where you might
> take a picture of a turnpoint as you went by it "just in case". You
> might opt not to include it if you were going to exceed your 11
> turnpoints, for example.
>
> HOWEVER, rule 11.2.2.1 says that the landing card shall "accurately
> reflect the flight that the pilot completed". As I recall, the intent
> of that rule was to prevent someone from intentionally under-reporting
> their flight in order to cancel out a day. That's certainly how I
> would interpret this rule if I were on the Contest Competition
> Committee (3.1.4).
>
> As far as radio usage is concerned, the Appendix to the rules makes it
> clear that the radio finish calls are for safety or nostalgia only
> "Pilots and gate personnel should understand that the radio call... is
> now mostly for show"
>
> No?
>
> P3

The start and finish are not required to be entered on the landing
card. Finishing is implied by checking the task complete box. Neither
the start, not the finish, are turnpoints although turnpoints may be
colocated with the start or finish. Your example of a completed
landing card does not seem to be valid.

In the case where a turnpoint falls inside the finish cylinder it is
perfectly legitimate to bag that turnpoint, then another, then return
to the finish. It is also true that a flight leg that happens to pass
through the finish cylinder does not force the pilot to abort the task
and land. No landing card claim need be associated with that event.

The radio call that "is for nostalgia" is the call of good finish by a
finish line ground observer. There have been cases where a good
finish call was given but the flight log shows no such valid finish
was made. It only applies to line finishes. The pilot call of
"finish" only applies to cylinder finishes.

Otherwise I think we are in agreement that there is no prohibition on
attempting another turnpoint after being inside the finish cylinder.
That's fortunate of course because often the start and finish are
colocated or overlap.

Andy

[Tom Serkowski]

(Jonathan Gere) wrote in message >...
> It did not count for a finish, because you didn't announce it on the
> radio. If you did call a finish, you are done after one lap and can't
> go on later. I'm not speaking of what WinScore will say, only of what
> the rules require. It is unambiguous that S's and F's "shall" be
> announced on the radio. Maybe it can be a finish, but you take a
> penalty for not announcing.

Disagree, the finish announcement is purely a 'heads up, I'm here'
call. I don't recall seeing a rule about penalties for not calling a
finish. I suppose that a safety issue could be raised if a pilot
fails to announce and is in the middle of a finish gaggle, but that's
an operational, and not scoring issue.

>
> >
> > Finish announcements are, IMHO, purely for safety and operations.
> > Scoring is done by validating your landing card claim with the IGC
> > log.
>
> I think they also prevent pilots from having multiple starts and
> finishes in play simultaneously.
>
> >
> > IF a pilot chooses to go around twice without landing after the first
> > (announced or stealthy) finish, then he is at risk of getting distance
> > points if he lands out or starts the engine on the second attempt.
> > Making a landing and officially observed takeoff, allows him to use
> > the first flight if the second attempt ends with a landout.
>
> agreed, but do you think he has the option of claiming either one or
> the combination of the two attempts if he goes around twice in one
> flight?

A start call, on the other hand, if required, must be made after each
start. It is up to the scorer to correlate the start calls with start
times to ensure it was done.

I don't beleive that making a start call after completing the task
will invalidate it. Again, this call is designed to provide some
feedback to other competitors that glider XX has recently started. In
the old days, one would just listen to the gate freq for this. Adding
a penalty for not making the call is just to force all competitors to
be out in the open about when they started. If the rules designers
had intended for this call to 'reset' the flight, then it would have
been spelled out plainly.


-Tom

[Gary Ittner]

Jonathan Gere wrote:

> It did not count for a finish, because you didn't announce it on the
> radio. If you did call a finish, you are done after one lap and can't
> go on later. I'm not speaking of what WinScore will say, only of what
> the rules require.

No, this is what the rules require:

11.2.2.4.4 If all claimed turnpoints are valid, and the pilot obtained
a scored start time, a finish time prior to finish closing and landed at
the contest site, then the pilot has completed the task.

Please notice that this rule does NOT contain the phrase "and announced
his start and finish on the radio".

> It is unambiguous that S's and F's "shall" be
> announced on the radio.

No, it is unambiguous that start *times* shall be reported within 15
minutes of a start, and it does not have to be on the radio (see rule
10.8.8.3). Finishes are announced by the pilot only when a finish
cylinder is used. With a finish line, the pilot only announces his
approach: "(Contest ID) four miles".

> Maybe it can be a finish, but you take a
> penalty for not announcing.

Now you are getting closer. It *is* a valid finish, and *maybe* you will
get a penalty for not announcing it on the radio. If a pilot repeatedly
refused to follow the radio procedures defined in the rules, the Contest
Director could make a good case for awarding a penalty for unsafe
flying or unsportsmanlike conduct. But I would have a low opinion of any
CD that handed out such a penalty automatically on first offense without
considering the circumstances.

On day 7 of the 2002 USA 15m Nats at Tonopah, Bill Bartell experienced a
double battery failure while on task: his primary battery became
unplugged, and his backup battery had a low charge. He turned off his
radio, his only vario, and his flight computer, saving his few remaining
electrons for the flight recorder. Bill finished and landed silently,
winning the day and moving into first place overall. Would you have
given him distance points only, or a penalty for not calling "four
miles"?

One day at the 2001 USA 15m Nats at Uvalde, the finish was so crowded
that the radio was squealing constantly from multiple pilots stepping on
each other trying to call "four miles", and Charlie Lite trying to
acknowledge each call. During the less than 2 minutes it took me to fly
at redline from "four miles out" to the finish line, there was not one
moment of clear frequency in which to announce my approach, and I chose
not to step on some other pilot's announcement. Would you have given me
a penalty?

> Suppose S(tart)=F(inish)=TP C. No designated turn MAT. You fly
> S-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-F (i.e. 11 TPs - 4 times around a
> triangle) then after landing claim the best scoring of any one of 10
> combinations of consecutive laps:
> 1,1+2,1+2+3,1+2+3+4,2,2+3,2+3+4,3,3+4,or 4.
>
> Will this work? Can you openly announce all 4 S's and all 4 F's on
> the radio to avoid the penalties for not doing so, and choose which to
> discard by leaving them off your landing card?

There is nothing in the rules to prevent this scheme, but practical
considerations make it a useless strategy. Firstly, any of the lap
combinations that took significantly less than the minimum task time
would likely score very low.

And since maximum start altitude and minimum finish altitude are never
the same, in order to make an efficient finish and an efficient start
between each lap, you would have to finish at minimum finish altitude
and immediately pull up into a good thermal, climbing to maximum start
altitude before exiting the start cylinder, all without wasting time
searching for lift.

It is therefore unlikely that any combination of laps other than 1+2+3+4
would have both an efficient start and an efficient finish. And if any
number of laps less than four is sufficient to use up the minimum task
time, you will be beaten by the pilot who did a better job of
"bracketing" the day by not flying as far as your four laps.

> If so, why do so many pilots go undertime on no turn MAT's, when they
> could easily bank insurance laps during the start gate roulette?

Perhaps those pilots are not as adept as you are at mis-interpreting the
rules or devising poor racing strategies.

Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

[Jonathan Gere]

Gary Ittner > wrote in message >...
> Jonathan Gere wrote:
>
>
> Please notice that this rule does NOT contain the phrase "and announced
> his start and finish on the radio".

Is this a good argument?. I would guess there are quite a few
important rules that affect getting a speed score which are NOT
referenced in 11.2.2.4.4 or the narrow hierarchy of rules defining the
terms 11.2.2.4.4 references. If not, and 11.2.2.4.4 is the all
important master root of all rules that count, congratulations, but
why is it buried 5 levels deep in section 11?

I am not in favor of radio procedure penalties or radio procedure
violations invalidating "normal" starts or finishes. I am only
clutching at straws to see how the rules might prohibit pre-pending or
appending TPs between multiple provisional starts and finishes. I
find the ability to be on multiple provisional starts / finishes /
tasks simultaneously an absurd consequence of the rules. It is little
comfort to me to have your assurance that it is strategically useless.

> On day 7 of the 2002 USA 15m Nats at Tonopah, Bill Bartell experienced a
> double battery failure while on task: his primary battery became
> unplugged, and his backup battery had a low charge. He turned off his
> radio, his only vario, and his flight computer, saving his few remaining
> electrons for the flight recorder. Bill finished and landed silently,
> winning the day and moving into first place overall. Would you have
> given him distance points only, or a penalty for not calling "four
> miles"?
>
> One day at the 2001 USA 15m Nats at Uvalde, the finish was so crowded
> that the radio was squealing constantly from multiple pilots stepping on
> each other trying to call "four miles", and Charlie Lite trying to
> acknowledge each call. During the less than 2 minutes it took me to fly
> at redline from "four miles out" to the finish line, there was not one
> moment of clear frequency in which to announce my approach, and I chose
> not to step on some other pilot's announcement. Would you have given me
> a penalty?
>

Good arguments for CD discretion.

> > Suppose S(tart)=F(inish)=TP C. No designated turn MAT. You fly
> > S-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-F (i.e. 11 TPs - 4 times around a
> > triangle) then after landing claim the best scoring of any one of 10
> > combinations of consecutive laps:
> > 1,1+2,1+2+3,1+2+3+4,2,2+3,2+3+4,3,3+4,or 4.
> >
> > Will this work? Can you openly announce all 4 S's and all 4 F's on
> > the radio to avoid the penalties for not doing so, and choose which to
> > discard by leaving them off your landing card?
>
> There is nothing in the rules to prevent this scheme, but practical
> considerations make it a useless strategy. Firstly, any of the lap
> combinations that took significantly less than the minimum task time
> would likely score very low.
>

I'm shocked. This is weird. I don't believe that all variations of
this loophole are strategically useless. The 4 times around example
is just a good example of the absurdity of the loophole. Operational
exploitations can be much more profitable.

> And since maximum start altitude and minimum finish altitude are never
> the same, in order to make an efficient finish and an efficient start
> between each lap, you would have to finish at minimum finish altitude
> and immediately pull up into a good thermal, climbing to maximum start
> altitude before exiting the start cylinder, all without wasting time
> searching for lift.
>
> It is therefore unlikely that any combination of laps other than 1+2+3+4
> would have both an efficient start and an efficient finish.

In practice, one could just prepend optionally claimable S-one or more
TPs- Home TP-S combinations without going low to finish. Cheap
insurance against gross or possibly even minor undertime.

> And if any
> number of laps less than four is sufficient to use up the minimum task
> time, you will be beaten by the pilot who did a better job of
> "bracketing" the day by not flying as far as your four laps.
>

The insurance excursions would occur before the final start intended
to bracket the *expected* day. The insurance excursions would absorb
any inefficiency in getting ready for the "perfect" optimized start.
If not claimed, the excursions imperfect efficiency wouldn't matter.
On the other hand, 1hr at even 80% efficiency is a lot better than
nothing, when everyone else finished an hour undertime due to an
*unexpected* thunderstorm. 30 minutes at 90% efficiency might be
worth claiming to avoid a routine 5-10 minute undertime (at 0%
efficiency).

> > If so, why do so many pilots go undertime on no turn MAT's, when they
> > could easily bank insurance laps during the start gate roulette?
>
> Perhaps those pilots are not as adept as you are at mis-interpreting the
> rules or devising poor racing strategies.
>

Thanks. You admit the loophole. I leave it to better pilots to work
out the operationally sound strategies.

> Gary Ittner P7
> "Have glider, will race"

[Jonathan Gere]

Re: 11.2.2.1

Quote
A11.2.2.1 ...
The landing card must reflect the flight actually accomplished, even
in the case where claiming a shorter flight might be in the pilot's
best interest. A deliberate violation of this rule could be considered
unsportsmanlike conduct.
Unquote

If the intent here is only to preclude deliberately helping to cancel
or devalue the day, then this certainly should not apply to not
claiming TP's along the way which would invalidate the pilot's flight.
Examples might be exceeding 11 TP's, as you mention, or a TP which
winds up being a repeated TP. To claim the invalid TP's would be to
claim a "shorter" flight in the scoring sense anyway.

The issue I see is that in quaint olden days the starts and finishes
were fixed and known to the ground, so the pilot's longest (in
distance) task was his fastest task. The pilot would never be
contributing to devaluation or cancellation by reporting the subset of
his flight giving the best scoring speed. Also, a pilot could not
discard a later start and revert to a previous start and use some TP's
made before and some TP's made after the final start to get a better
distance.

But now:

What if his best attempt in one flight is complete, but grossly
undertime? This could cause devaluation under Rule 11.5.4. Must he
claim the maximum possible distance and/or time from the combination
of turnpoints reached in two attempts he never intended as a single
task attempt, even if it produces a slower scoring speed? An
unintended valid TP may even have been reached following an unintended
valid start with no intention of even being on course, must he claim
this under 11.2.2.1?

What if a pilot starts, gets a TP, gets slow, comes back without
landing, takes another start (an entirely new attempt he thinks) and
lands out short of minimum distance. Should he claim the maximum
possible distance from the combination of turnpoints reached in two
attempts he never intended as a single task attempt? Does good
sportsmanship require it? Do the rules require it?

Jonathan Gere 34

(Erik mann) wrote in message >...
> (John Cochrane) wrote in message >...
> >
> > However, as far as I can tell, you CAN call your first passage the
> > "finish" for scoring purposes if you're willing to take the land-out
> > risk. For example, if you try another turnpoint in a MAT but then turn
> > around and land home, or even if you make it but it gives you a slower
> > time overall, nothing stops you from calling the first passage a
> > "finish."
> >
>
> I agree with John' interpretation, and I think the way you accomplish
> this is based on the contents of the landing card. Using the MAT
> example for a second, if we have a task with: Start, Turn 1, Turn 2
> assigned and assuming the pilot completes Turns 1 and 2, then the
> options for the next CLAIMED point are:
>
> - Finish
> - Turn 3
>
> If the landing card says the pilot claims Finish (irrespective of
> whether the trace shows he actually made Turn 3), then the scorer is
> obligated to score the flight that way. As long as he was within the
> limits of the Finish Cylinder, I see no reason why that isn't
> legitimate. If the landing card says the pilot claims Turn 3, then
> that's how it is scored. It's not unlike the old PST where you might
> take a picture of a turnpoint as you went by it "just in case". You
> might opt not to include it if you were going to exceed your 11
> turnpoints, for example.
>
> HOWEVER, rule 11.2.2.1 says that the landing card shall "accurately
> reflect the flight that the pilot completed". As I recall, the intent
> of that rule was to prevent someone from intentionally under-reporting
> their flight in order to cancel out a day. That's certainly how I
> would interpret this rule if I were on the Contest Competition
> Committee (3.1.4).
>
> As far as radio usage is concerned, the Appendix to the rules makes it
> clear that the radio finish calls are for safety or nostalgia only
> "Pilots and gate personnel should understand that the radio call... is
> now mostly for show"
>
> No?
>
> P3

[Gary Ittner]

Jonathan Gere wrote:

> > Please notice that this rule does NOT contain the phrase "and announced
> > his start and finish on the radio".
>
> Is this a good argument?.

It is difficult to prove a negative, isn't it? Perhaps I should not have
attempted to make things easier for you and instead simply said, "There
is no rule that invalidates a start or a finish due to lack of a radio
call", and put the burden of proof on you to support your opposing
statement.

> I would guess there are quite a few
> important rules that affect getting a speed score which are NOT
> referenced in 11.2.2.4.4 or the narrow hierarchy of rules defining the
> terms 11.2.2.4.4 references. If not, and 11.2.2.4.4 is the all
> important master root of all rules that count, congratulations, but
> why is it buried 5 levels deep in section 11?

All the rules count, but they cannot all be front and center in
paragraph one. And while some rules may be more important than others
for running a safe and fair contest, the importance of a rule is not
intended to be proportional to its subparagraph level in the rule book.

> I am not in favor of radio procedure penalties or radio procedure
> violations invalidating "normal" starts or finishes. I am only
> clutching at straws to see how the rules might prohibit pre-pending or
> appending TPs between multiple provisional starts and finishes.

So, did you deliberately prevaricate when you stated that, according to
the rules, a start or finish is invalidated by the lack of a radio
announcement?

> I find the ability to be on multiple provisional starts / finishes /
> tasks simultaneously an absurd consequence of the rules.

And I do not.

> It is little
> comfort to me to have your assurance that it is strategically useless.

It is of great comfort to me. I believe there may an infinite number of
useless strategies for flying any of the tasks. One of the main purposes
of the rules is to ensure fair competition, but I see no benefit in
making our rulebook infinitely longer by specifically prohibiting every
strategy in which a pilot cannot gain an unfair advantage, or indeed any
advantage at all.

> I'm shocked. This is weird. I don't believe that all variations of
> this loophole are strategically useless. The 4 times around example
> is just a good example of the absurdity of the loophole. Operational
> exploitations can be much more profitable.
>
> In practice, one could just prepend optionally claimable S-one or more
> TPs- Home TP-S combinations without going low to finish. Cheap
> insurance against gross or possibly even minor undertime.
>
> The insurance excursions would occur before the final start intended
> to bracket the *expected* day. The insurance excursions would absorb
> any inefficiency in getting ready for the "perfect" optimized start.
> If not claimed, the excursions imperfect efficiency wouldn't matter.
> On the other hand, 1hr at even 80% efficiency is a lot better than
> nothing, when everyone else finished an hour undertime due to an
> *unexpected* thunderstorm. 30 minutes at 90% efficiency might be
> worth claiming to avoid a routine 5-10 minute undertime (at 0%
> efficiency).

I will admit that it is not entirely impossible that you could gain by
this strategy, but the phrase "extremely unlikely" does not seem
powerful enough to describe it.

To recap, your insurance lap would only be useful with a no turn MAT
(rare nowadays), called on a day with no expected weather problems (when
other, less flexible tasks are *far* more likely to be called; no turn
MATs are usually called specifically because there are expected weather
problems), all of your competitors start (what turns out to be) too
late, and along comes a weather problem too severe for the flexibility
of the MAT to deal with. I'd call it a one in a million chance.

And I don't agree that this insurance is cheap; you simply haven't
calculated the cost. You might have to try this insurance lap trick many
times before the proper conditions arise to make it useful, and:

1. You might land out while your competitors are safely back near the
contest site playing start gate roulette. Believe me, I know what it
feels like to land out before one's expected start.

2. The conditions could change while you are on your insurance lap,
causing everyone else to start en masse before you get back for your
expected start. Even on a no turn MAT, there is often only one obvious
direction to go. Your competitors will have thermal markers, and you
will have none.

3. Even when the proper combination of conditions comes along, you
cannot be sure all of your competitors will start late. If one starts
early, he will have the advantage over you of being able to place a
higher proportion of his flight in the area of best lift. Your insurance
lap will necessarily be close to home, and, in my experience, that is
rarely where the best soaring conditions are located.

The premium you pay for your insurance lap is much higher than the
potential claim payout.

> Thanks. You admit the loophole. I leave it to better pilots to work
> out the operationally sound strategies.

And if there are no operationally sound strategies, is it still a
loophole?

Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

[Andy Blackburn]

As I read the rules I am hard pressed to find any language
that indicates that radio calls are intended to determine
which starts or finishes are to be used. There is certainly
no specific language requiring this. To the contrary,
what language there is appears to indicate safety as
the reason, particularly for finishes. Furthermore,
the specific language in the 2004 rules makes start
calls optional at the CD's discretion.

10.8.8 Start time reporting
The CD *may* require pilots to report their start times
by radio.

When it's mandatory, the rules read *shall* rather
than *may*.

As to the efficacy Jonathan's 4-lap strategy, I guess
it is theoretically possible that you could have a
1.5 hour MAT called (with or without a first TP) on
a day with 6 hours of good soaring conditions after
the gate opens. Gary points out some of the practical
limitations (best conditions near the Start/Finish,
outlanding risk, needing to find a good thermal from
low altitude right after each intermediate finish).


The biggest negative for me is the fact that you would
need to take a start earlier than normal to get in
the first 'lap' and from then on you are 'on the clock'.
This means that you are forced at each subsequent finish
to get back out on course right away, rather than trying
to optimize the height or location or time of your
start. This is particularly true if you need more than
one lap to get over minimum time. There is also (as
John Cochrane would point out) a structural points
penalty associated with multi-lap strategies that put
you well over minimum time.

A potentially more likely scenario is a pilot who elects
to add turnpoints after 'finishing' a task - either
because he finds himself under time and/or sees conditions
ahead that allow him to quickly bag a couple of additional
turnpoints. I pursued this strategy one day at a contest
this summer, but never connected with a good thermal,
so I landed.

I personally don't have a problem with pilots pursuing
these strategies - practical or not. It doesn't seem
unfair and the rules required to preclude them would
just add complexity.

9B

[TomnKeyLargo]

This bagging of turnpoints or laps before your start. Remember, the task start
time?? Remember what Winscore checks for?? Whenever you start, no matter when,
Winscore MUST see a gps trace to each and every turnpoint or turn area and a
finish. IF Winscore does NOT see this trace, then it gives you a landout. On A
MAT, Winscore must see this trace between turnpoints claimed or you will get a
landout. Winscore checks flight traces and turnpoints/ turn areas. Like it
connects the gps fixes to the dots and the circle has to be complete. Without a
proper flight trace you will get a landout, or no flight. Just as See you shows
you your flight, if you don't get to the turnpoint/turn area it shows you a
photo landing. Only a small power interuption is allowed. The finish and start
are not turnpoints. If you come back and finish, you better get a turnpoint for
the area you are in before you go back and try to increase your distance. and
then get a turnpoint on a mat and then landout, since you didn't land at the
home field, then Winscore will land you out. What you can not do is bag
turnpoints or laps before the start. Winscore again checks for traces between
the start and turnpoints and /or turn areas. If someone wishes to finish, then
head back to the turn area to get more mileage, he can do so, but he better
make it home and show a finish and not landout. And if anyone wishes to do this
and think it will increase his speed, please do so, I like to win. If cheaters
like to come and try to win this way, of bagging laps or turnpoints before the
start, then I have noticed that they make themselfs seen. As they have teeth
marks on their foreheads, as they have bitten their ass which their heads are
up. IMHO. # 711.

[Guy Byars]

> Winscore MUST see a gps trace to each and every turnpoint or turn area and
a
> finish. IF Winscore does NOT see this trace, then it gives you a landout.
> On A MAT, Winscore must see this trace between turnpoints claimed or you
will get a
> landout. Winscore checks flight traces and turnpoints/ turn areas. Like
it.....

I have watched this thead with interest, and really wanted to keep out of
it, but this post forced me to jump in.

In your post you repeatedly say what Winscore can and can't do and what
Winscore requires of a flight trace. Winscore is one tool used by a scorer
to see if a US contest flight conforms to the published US rules. "Winscore
will land you out" if the rules specify a landout in such a situation.
"Winscore checks" was is required to be checked by the US rules. Any
deviation in Winscore's behavior from the US rules should be immediately
reported to me as a program problem.

And when, inevitably, Winscore does make an error scoring a flight, it gives
the scorer the tools to override and correct the analysis based on the
scorer and CD's judment.

Guy Byars
Winscore Author

[TomnKeyLargo]

>
>In your post you repeatedly say what Winscore can and can't do and what
>Winscore requires of a flight trace. Winscore is one tool used by a scorer
>to see if a US contest flight conforms to the published US rules. "Winscore
>will land you out" if the rules specify a landout in such a situation.
>"Winscore checks" was is required to be checked by the US rules. Any
>deviation in Winscore's behavior from the US rules should be immediately
>reported to me as a program problem.
>

Yes, Guy, I assumed we are talking about WinScore being used at US contests.
This topic started from the bagging of turnpoints before the start. Current US
contest rules do not permit bagging of turnpoints before the start. to then be
used whenever a contestant wishes to slip them in. I was speaking of how
generally Winscore works, and of course it must be used by a qualified scorer
and CD, under US rules, when used in the U.S.A. I believe that when used in
this way, Winscore does what it is designed to do. My responce to this thead
came from the idea that contestants were thinking of a way to get around the
rules for a unfair advantage. I believe that we, the contestants, all want a
""level playing field"" and this is what is given us by the US contest rules.
Our US contest board, along with you, have worked very hard to give us what we
have today. A good progam which has "checks" and "balances" for our racing
needs. I do not know everything Winscore can and cann't do, and as you know,
earlier this year I spoke with you about a start problem seen by a contest
scorer and contest manager. I have been told that this problem now has been
corrected. That's great and I thank you for your help. At the contests I have
been at over the last few years, most scorers, when their time permits, are
glad to show you how they perform their work. Most CD's are willing to speak
with you over the rules when their workload does permit. As new contestants are
needed for our sport to grow, I suggest to them that when they do go to
contests, they speak with their mentors, or contest officals to "clear their
thoughts" on the US rules, so all of us can have a "level playing field". #
711.

[Andy Blackburn]

I think there's some confusion about the term 'before
the start'.

The point that was being made was that under certain
circumstances it might be advantageous to make a start
(after the task is opened), fly some sequence of legal
turnpoints, return and fly through the finish cylinder
and the go out and fly some more to accumulate more
speed/distance.

Under a MAT this looks just like any other flight that
happens to include the finish point as a legal turnpoint,
at least from a scoring perspective. It is debatable
as to whether this would ever be something you would
plan to do ahead of time given all the operational
constraints, landout risks, etc. There was also a debate
as to whether calling '4 miles' and 'finish' necessarily
makes null and void any subsequent flying (I say no
- you can keep flying legally).

Under a TAT, this would only appear to make sense if
the whether is very unpredictable, you are well under
time AND it you are able to stay aloft near the finish.
I would think the final turn area would need to be
pretty close to home as well. In this case you are
going back out either to finish off a turn area you
missed or go deeper into the last one under improved
WX conditions. Seems legal to me - but may not be profitable
very often.

I can't think of an AST task circumstance where this
makes any sense, since the distance and turnpoints
are pre-determined.

9B

At 17:18 05 September 2004, Tomnkeylargo wrote:
>>
>>In your post you repeatedly say what Winscore can and
>>can't do and what
>>Winscore requires of a flight trace. Winscore is one
>>tool used by a scorer
>>to see if a US contest flight conforms to the published
>>US rules. 'Winscore
>>will land you out' if the rules specify a landout in
>>such a situation.
>>'Winscore checks' was is required to be checked by
>>the US rules. Any
>>deviation in Winscore's behavior from the US rules
>>should be immediately
>>reported to me as a program problem.
>>
>
>Yes, Guy, I assumed we are talking about WinScore being
>used at US contests.
>This topic started from the bagging of turnpoints before
>the start. Current US
>contest rules do not permit bagging of turnpoints before
>the start. to then be
>used whenever a contestant wishes to slip them in.
>I was speaking of how
>generally Winscore works, and of course it must be
>used by a qualified scorer
>and CD, under US rules, when used in the U.S.A. I
>believe that when used in
>this way, Winscore does what it is designed to do.
> My responce to this thead
>came from the idea that contestants were thinking of
>a way to get around the
>rules for a unfair advantage. I believe that we, the
>contestants, all want a
>''level playing field'' and this is what is given us
>by the US contest rules.
>Our US contest board, along with you, have worked very
>hard to give us what we
>have today. A good progam which has 'checks' and 'balances'
> for our racing
>needs. I do not know everything Winscore can and
>cann't do, and as you know,
>earlier this year I spoke with you about a start problem
>seen by a contest
>scorer and contest manager. I have been told that this
>problem now has been
>corrected. That's great and I thank you for your help.
>At the contests I have
>been at over the last few years, most scorers, when
>their time permits, are
>glad to show you how they perform their work. Most
>CD's are willing to speak
>with you over the rules when their workload does permit.
>As new contestants are
>needed for our sport to grow, I suggest to them that
>when they do go to
>contests, they speak with their mentors, or contest
>officals to 'clear their
>thoughts' on the US rules, so all of us can have a
>'level playing field'. #
>711.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jonathan Gere]

Gary Ittner > wrote in message >...
>
> So, did you deliberately prevaricate when you stated that, according to
> the rules, a start or finish is invalidated by the lack of a radio
> announcement?
>

No, I sincerely misunderstood how the rules committee intends the
rules to be read. There is an outline level heading for each type of
start and finish. In the same hierarchical position for each type are
a paragraph *requiring* certain communications and a paragraph
*requiring* certain flight paths. It is natural to me to assume they
are both essential parts of the procedure to get a start or finish.
Especially, if the consequence of assuming the opposite is a goofy
loophole, blocked only by a top pilot's assurance that it is
unprofitable!

If I understand the rules of construction correctly, based on your
clarifications, not making required communications is against the
rules, but has no bearing on being scored for speed points, and only
might/may be penalized at CD discretion. Apologies to anyone I
ignorantly misled into following the rules unnecessarily.

I think all this falls into the category of an "oral tradition" rather
than a "tight" racing rule. Leaving out the deliberate prevarication
you suspect of me, see that eager racer 711 quite misunderstands the
rules as you see them regarding my useless loophole. Luckily, not
understanding (or reading) the rules is traditional in soaring. My
impression is that to arrive at the "accepted" interpretation of our
rules requires in turn both mind boggling chains of logic and literal
reading in some places and the ignoring of loopholes and literal
contradictions in other places in favor of common sense. I cited some
examples in earlier posts. And no I don't think I could write them
better, if you are tempted to reply with the standard "why don't you
volunteer to write the rules if you think they aren't perfect".

When the rules introduced this multi-task in progress possibility, it
would have been nice had it been noticed, and the theoretical
possibility discussed, along with how useless the best pilots find it.
But it seems to me that it was overlooked. I think that if you rule
writing, contest winning experts had considered and ruled out this
stuff as harmless in advance, such a seemingly important, but
inconsequential, major change would have been explicitly covered in
the explanatory material.

> > I find the ability to be on multiple provisional starts / finishes /
> > tasks simultaneously an absurd consequence of the rules.
>
> And I do not.
>
> > It is little
> > comfort to me to have your assurance that it is strategically useless.
>
> It is of great comfort to me. I believe there may an infinite number of
> useless strategies for flying any of the tasks. One of the main purposes
> of the rules is to ensure fair competition, but I see no benefit in
> making our rulebook infinitely longer by specifically prohibiting every
> strategy in which a pilot cannot gain an unfair advantage, or indeed any
> advantage at all.
>
> > I'm shocked. This is weird. I don't believe that all variations of
> > this loophole are strategically useless. The 4 times around example
> > is just a good example of the absurdity of the loophole. Operational
> > exploitations can be much more profitable.
> >
> > In practice, one could just prepend optionally claimable S-one or more
> > TPs- Home TP-S combinations without going low to finish. Cheap
> > insurance against gross or possibly even minor undertime.
> >
> > The insurance excursions would occur before the final start intended
> > to bracket the *expected* day. The insurance excursions would absorb
> > any inefficiency in getting ready for the "perfect" optimized start.
> > If not claimed, the excursions imperfect efficiency wouldn't matter.
> > On the other hand, 1hr at even 80% efficiency is a lot better than
> > nothing, when everyone else finished an hour undertime due to an
> > *unexpected* thunderstorm. 30 minutes at 90% efficiency might be
> > worth claiming to avoid a routine 5-10 minute undertime (at 0%
> > efficiency).
>
> I will admit that it is not entirely impossible that you could gain by
> this strategy, but the phrase "extremely unlikely" does not seem
> powerful enough to describe it.
>
> To recap, your insurance lap would only be useful with a no turn MAT
> (rare nowadays), called on a day with no expected weather problems (when
> other, less flexible tasks are *far* more likely to be called; no turn
> MATs are usually called specifically because there are expected weather
> problems), all of your competitors start (what turns out to be) too
> late, and along comes a weather problem too severe for the flexibility
> of the MAT to deal with. I'd call it a one in a million chance.
>

> And I don't agree that this insurance is cheap; you simply haven't
> calculated the cost. You might have to try this insurance lap trick many
> times before the proper conditions arise to make it useful, and:
>
> 1. You might land out while your competitors are safely back near the
> contest site playing start gate roulette. Believe me, I know what it
> feels like to land out before one's expected start.
>
> 2. The conditions could change while you are on your insurance lap,
> causing everyone else to start en masse before you get back for your
> expected start. Even on a no turn MAT, there is often only one obvious
> direction to go. Your competitors will have thermal markers, and you
> will have none.
>
> 3. Even when the proper combination of conditions comes along, you
> cannot be sure all of your competitors will start late. If one starts
> early, he will have the advantage over you of being able to place a
> higher proportion of his flight in the area of best lift. Your insurance
> lap will necessarily be close to home, and, in my experience, that is
> rarely where the best soaring conditions are located.
>
> The premium you pay for your insurance lap is much higher than the
> potential claim payout.
>
> > Thanks. You admit the loophole. I leave it to better pilots to work
> > out the operationally sound strategies.
>
> And if there are no operationally sound strategies, is it still a
> loophole?
>
> Gary Ittner P7
> "Have glider, will race"

Yes. Because the long shot pilot whose "policy" pays off does not
have to have good long term prospects to screw up a day's scoring (his
outstanding performance effectively further devaluing the day by
reducing the point spread between the contending, undertime top dogs
following good strategy.)

Yes. Because pilots should understand what the rules permit and either
come to their own conclusions about what to do, or just sensibly
accept the experts' advice on the subject.

Thanks for sharing your keen racing strategizing, and for responding
to the issues I raised. I feel that many racers would not be as
comfortable as you are with this "non-loophole" (if they knew it
existed). Like JJ they might think anyone that did it was cheating.
Me to! But I also believe that like the illusion of the witch and the
beautiful woman, log files show both the "cheating" and the normal
racing re-starts, and the two are not always objectively
distinquishable.

Jonathan Gere 34

[Kilo Charlie]

Disclaimer....this post has very little to do with the current discussion:

Guy....you have an outstanding scoring program so I for one would like to
say thanks and want to let you know how appreciative most of us are that you
have spent so much time perfecting it!

711 and 9B...where the heck are you guys this weekend??? We expected to see
both of you for the Southwest Championship races! It has been miserable
conditions for this time of year and wish that you all could have shared it
with us. Besides it is obvious from your multiple posts that neither of you
had much going on to keep you from coming to Arizona! ;-)

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix